James Bopp of the James Madison Center for Free Speech appeared before the moot court judges panel Friday in preparation for his anticipated argument before the United States Supreme Court in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life. Bopp represents Wisconsin Right to Life in this case concerning whether "genuine issue ads" are subject to the same regulations as candidate support ads under campaign finance laws. This Supreme Court Advocacy Project was sponsored by Dean Elena Kagan, The Federalist Society, and the American Constitution Society.
FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life is expected to answer unresolved issues stemming from the Court's previous decisions in McConnel v. FEC. Bopp argued that the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform statute should not be allowed to silence grassroots lobbying efforts to encourage elected officials to vote on genuine issues of legislation.
"Genuine issue ads focus on a legislative branch matter and urge people to contact a legislator to take action on the matter," Bopp said. "The defendants claim that there are no genuine issue ads, but we are talking about an ad focuses on a current legislative issue and not on a legislator's character."
Throughout his argument, Bopp responded to heavy questioning from the judicial panel consisting of Harvard professors Mark Tushnet and Charles Fried, Capital University professor Brad Smith, and former FEC Chairman Ben Ginsberg. When asked if a genuine issue ad would allow an attack on a legislator's current position on an issue, Bopp said the ad would remain a genuine issue ad so long as it focused on a genuine legislative issue.
"The Court has never held that just because ad that might influence an election the court power to limit that speech." Bopp said.
When questioned by the panel if Bopp's test would create a safe harbor for candidate support ads to masquerade as issue ads, Bopp highlighted the differences between a genuine issue ad and a sham ad.
"Genuine issue ads are different from sham ads in several respects." Bopp said. "Sham ads are often not about a current legislative issue, but focus on the characteristics of the person."
The panel proceeded to question him on if the difference between a genuine issue ad and a candidate ad only hinged on "magic words" or "toxic words" used in the ad. He was also questioned extensively on whether the case could be considered moot.
Following the oral argument, the panel advised Bopp on ways to strengthen his argument. He also responded to questions from the audience.
My wife's father is hessaby as in www.hessaby.com (they stole his cash and put it there) and my mother-in-law family is related by marriage tot the Pakravans., who headed the SAVAKPan Am was nicknamed PanIran as the Shah's family was the largest shareholder. I have extreme amount of details of exactly was going on
from the Iranians wanting him to return their assets to other coup attempts to 6 months before the Shah son pretended he was bankrupt in a public trial, to my wifes relative coming to our house talking about the coup and we did not know they were in Washington DC, to the Iran Contra hearings trial that was going to start Feb 20 th, 1989 to the tipping of the coup to the Iranian govt, ,to something in writing I can prove the coup to the Salamon Rushtie Feb 14th insult to islam to get the people on the street to avoid the coup to the Iranian govt announcement of a coup by 'dissent mullahs' announced at the time to the negiotations between the Bush people involved pretending they were going to make a deal to the 'nice' stories plant in US newspapers at the time (including the Post) as part of the negotation to the fact the bomb had to placed out of London based on the flight path as I worked at USAir at the time creating the flight plans for the 'planes to fly themselves' to overt CIA agents around me at the time to the fact that Bollier, the guy who made the timer for the bomb's wide was IRANIAN and the Libyans told me and said they were not allowed to say... there were 3 witness only.. the main one was trashed.. Bollier and a guy whom said he soldm the Libyan a suitcase in Malta.. hence, one the suitcase guy would be left.. the Libyans did not put up a defence in exchange for evidence to trash the main witness on the stand to what an overt CIA agent told me in the US 4 years later.. etc. etc and the details of several coups to the new World bank (my wie's cousin involved who used to work at the work bank)and US loans starting May 1990 to Iran to the fact that PANAm was shut down 18 months later as they thought it would be targeted again because of the Shah connection (the US airlines go in and out of bankruptcy all the time - this was the one of the first US airlines - an ICON) etc
I also know where the Iranian govt officials have money in the US, Canada and UK; the back door dealing etccall me for details.. Barry Lanza 00 44 1786831554.. My father-in-law was a convicted spy given amnesty